Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : School texts dismiss Darwin? |
|
Answer» This is an old topic. Been going on for over 150 years. However, the AP found a new twist to the story dated March 6, 2010. Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolutionFull AP story here. Darwin published in 1859 his book On the Origin of Species. One step forward and two steps back seems to be the norm. for scientific theories these days. I think the main problem is simply that most people who discredit it don't understand how evolution WORKS. it's not just a case of "hmm, I wish I had flippers" and poof, they have flippers, or they GROW flippers, or whatever. It's more like "hah, look at that mutant kid with the flippers. OMG! I'm drowning! help me flipper boy!" heh, I particularly like (or more precisely, dislike) this part: Quote Wile countered that Coyne "feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution). We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up." Constantly creationist state that evolution is failing... and yet it seems counter to the fact that there are countless examples of physical evidence in it's favour. dinosaurs; fossil records that show a eventual change in shape from hollow-boned lizard to feathered bird. And yet the only "evidence" to the contrary is a book filled with vague suggestions where even people who all agree it is "the word of god" fight over exactly what it means. If God was to write a book I would imagine that he'd make *censored* sure everybody could intrepret it. I highly doubt he'd try to be poetic and represent stuff using vague and easily misinterpreted fables but rather be a bit more direct. Nor would all of them be strangely themed around the very period of time in which it was written. Does anybody wonder why the bible was transcribed exclusively in latin for hundreds of years? And NOTE the word "transcribed" these were copied by monks using ink and ILLUMINATION, god knows (haha, good pun I say) how many inaccuracies and errors made their way into it. And it wasn't even available for reading by the very people who believed in it for hundreds of years, instead they took the interpretation of an "enlightened few" who decided exactly what everything meant. Consider for a moment the concept of "indugences" whereby people could literally pay their way into heaven. Sounds more like a pyramid scheme of the middle ages to me, not a religion. Anyway I could go on for pages about this... but I've done that before in thread(s) inappropriately posted on the very debate. |
|